See, there are 2 problems with this. the current one is the fact that in reality the number of hetro females is roughly the same as the number of hetro males, so if one male takes multiple females that leaves several other males frustrated. and young frustrated males tend to make bad decisions.

In the anime/manga/fantasy world females tend to out number males 5-10 to 1. and chainmail bikinis provide enough protection.

the other problem is well, mostly outdated but when men were the main bread winner (which they still earn more than females) its not really enough to support MULTIPLE wives for most people. so its sort of a crime of negligence since the other wives wouldn't be getting enough support.

a third problem is likely with the inheritance laws. Which can likely be re-written but without addressing that it opens a large can of worms.

Women don't typically want multiple husbands.

Whoa there. Why so sexist? I never said anything about only men having multiple female partners. Even if my examples are male + multiple females (since those were some prominent examples), that doesn't mean it can't be the other way around. If there are women willing to share why can't there be guys? We're not living in the olden days where women don't have a choice. The point about anime and manga is invalid as I'm not even talking about those. The Wheel of Time series had about equal number of male and female protagonists, and Muslims having multiple wives is a real life phenomenon.

I also don't really see how inheritance laws will need to be changed much. After all, it's just like having multiple children only they're from different mothers/fathers.

It's not any of my business if someone wants to participate in a polygamous relationship. If that person is happy and chose to partake, why wouldn't I accept it? I personally don't understand the desire or wish to be in more than a 2-person relationship, but I choose my relationships, others choose theirs. Live and let live.

I wouldn't be against entering into a polyamorous relationship myself. I'm a rather low maintenance and independent person and I wouldn't mind entering into a threeway relationship with guys/girls/trans/intersex/non-binaries etc. So long as we all loved each other equally it would be fine. I'm not sure I'd have the energy to keep up with more than two partners, but again I wouldn't be against it if we found a way to make it work. I don't want to ever get married, (unless it were for the tax cuts) mainly because I think of it as a pointless socially constructed institution that has no real bearing on how valid relationships are. Many people I know have very serious and dedicated relationships outside of marriage and are perfectly true to each other within the framework of their relationship.

A lot of posts make it seem like a polyamorous relationship is something where one partner gets to "cheat" while the other is left at home, but this isn't the case in truly polyamorous relationships. In the relationship all three or more would ideally interact with each other equally and love each other equally. Although I see no problems with the other set-up so long as all are consenting. But all this nonsense about being "forced" to chose one over the other is ridiculous. Three and more people can love and satisfy each other without anybody feeling jealous or left out.

I truly despise it when people try to bring morality into issues of sexuality, because who you are as a moral being has nothing to do with how you conduct your sex life, unless you are forcing someone into a nonconsensual act of sex or are manipulating/using them, but again that has nothing to do with your actual sexuality, since monogamous heterosexuals do this as well, and everything to do with your general shittiness as a human being. I know pansexual polyamorous people who are far more moral and compassionate than their cisgendered, straight, monogamous, hypocritical, judgmental, religious counterparts.

so strange that "romantic love" has to accompany a sense of distinct favoritism & jealousy for some

yet "general love" doesn't, can that line of thinking function harmoniously? ?? wont children naturally pickup tendencies on favoritism then? by logic should have a favorite parent or favorite best friend or favorite child becauzw learning to love more than 1 is wrong?!??

historically when people prized owning females akin to having more land and sheep I guess a purely monogamous society was preferable to murdering your neighbors and love rivals but in the modern free world people should be allowed to love free of the scrutiny of aggression whether they choose to have a single "romantic love" or otherwise

I accept and will probably participate in a future. Actually, the person I (platonically?) like is in an open relationship with her girlfriend, and I'm guessing-hoping they like me back. If I ask her out or something it's likely to end up in a polyamorous relationship.

No. I'm a jealous person, and wouldn't want to share my significant other with other women (Sorry guys, not a single one of you is cool enough for me to be part of your harem), so I'd have to hold myself to the same standards. While experiencing lots of different guys has its appeal, I think actually having a committed relationship is more appealing.

As far as life decisions are concerned, the monogamous marriage is probably the safer bet, especially for women. I can't help but feel that a 'sharing' relationship isn't going to last into old age. If a woman wants a chance at financial success her best bet is to tie her man down or tie her tubes because studies show being a single mom is the pits, and the kids have even worse prospects. Sure, most single parent households are the result of divorce but I'd rather have a chance. You might call me a unadventurous but when I look around me and see all the single moms, robbed of that thing called fun and a life because they have to take care of a kid, earn a pittance of a living (and sometimes go to college), I think it's an accomplishment.

The way i view it, it depends on the person. Let us talk about humans and their "instincts".

They say the most indescribable emotion is love, there is more than one kind of love.Love for your family, love for your friend then love for you spouse or w/e.

Lets look at men and women, if we go back far enough to the hunter and the gatherer...we would see that moral relevance wasn't much of a thing. In fact the only major reason we could asses for couples happening rather than just one alpha male populating the tribe with strong genes was because of the unique nature of the hunter gatherer dynamic.

one male couldn't realistically hunt for more than one family. So naturally couples formed, 1 hunt's one looks after children, etc.Eventually over time we had to define this "instinct" that not only presented the desire to procreate but also to feel a strong connection to a singular person. We call this love. F*&k those vague poets that tell you you can't explain it, it makes a lot of simple sense.

I could go on into further detail and describe that the feelings between men and women slightly different in love simply because the nature of some the instinct is brought about for slightly different reasons (to look after or be looked after) but that is for another debate.

So, polygamy, we are no longer in a period of time where managing more than one family is impossible. So yes, there is nothing wrong with it if we are to look at this with an unbiased eye.

We simply need to understand the instinct...on the same tokken it could be said that the bond you develop between more than one lover might not be as strong as just the one because of our ancestor instinct to nature a main family.

I'm sure a lot of people are ready to jump at my points but i will say this is only a majority functionality outlook, not everyone is the same. Some people are different and even so to "instinct", it's not an iron rule but what is closer to accuracy on the majority would be something near what i wrote.

________________I believe in letting people do as they wish, as do I myself. Sometimes, of course, what I wish to do is kill them and they do not wish to die. This gives life interest.

I accept and support polygamy but not polyandry, cause I have seen some men in real life having two wives and they are raising 2 family's and treating their wives and kids equally, though the wives are living in different houses....I bet they'll kill each other if they stay together. Being a women I can't say I can do that (having two husbands) some might, but I'll be too overwhelmed. I am okay with my husband having another legal wife (not a extra marital affair) as long as he is being honest and open about it and spends time with me when I need him emotionally and sexually.

And lets talk about realistic figures, the overall percentage of women is quite high compared to men, because men indulge in fights, wars etc. etc. they are exposed to more life threatening situations and with increasing numbers of homosexual males the number of males who can raise family is even more decreasing.I don't really mind people being homosexuals, they love what they love its their choice. But if this keeps happening in the future what are women who wants their own family suppose to do to find their partner change their sexuality and adopt children?

Well, I'm against polygamy for sure. I don't necessarily think it should be between two people but I do have an issue with the unfairness of it. I mean, if it is acceptable for guys to have multiple wives, women should have the same right. And the whole "then we'll have to take paternity tests" argument doesn't work. If they can afford to support multiple wives and 10+ kids, they can afford one paternity test one time in that kids life.

Polyamory I'm okay with as long as both sides agree with the arrangement and don't expect exclusivity. I would never consider them in a serious relationship though; more like sex friends.

So, polygamy, we are no longer in a period of time where managing more than one family is impossible. So yes, there is nothing wrong with it if we are to look at this with an unbiased eye.

See I don't think that's the case for most people. I actually was gonna write a bit about this but I thought it was a little too long winded. But since you brought up this point i might as well say my bit.

I agree that humans became somewhat monogamous because of the need for two parents and with the rise of civilization, it is possible to manage more than one family, but in all practicality its really still not that possible/practical. Let me explain, Even in past societies where polygyny (one man with multiple wives) was practiced, it was not the norm, only the top members of society had more than one wife. (which makes sense, if there were a bunch of guys with no wives, even if they were poor and repressed they'd probably murder the guy that was hogging the women).

The point i'm trying to make is that the only way it's possible to "manage" more than one family is to be super rich because you have to feed two wives and two sets of kids.

Now theoretically the wives could work but that brings up another problem, if the women are able to make enough money to make a difference in the household income, then they're not so stupid as to settle for a man who needs her to work so he can have those other wives. But, more than that, women even willingly leave their husbands knowing they'll go into destitute poverty when they find out he's slept with another woman. That tells you something about the nature of women. So there you have it, even in cultures where women can help earn income, a man would still have to be super rich to keep multiple wives.

Since I've talked about polygyny, I might as well talk about polyandry as well. Simply put, it's hardly ever existed. Women typically have less desire for multiple partners, probably because unlike men, they can't increase their number of offspring by having multiple partners (though the survival for offspring does increase when it happens). I once read that even in cultures that do practice polyandry, it's typically the man who chooses the other husbands, usually his brother(s). Alas, even anthropologists admit they don't know of any true matriarchal society that's ever existed and I think that's says something about the nature of human beings. (Sorry, radical feminists).

And then there's the ever elusive polygynandry. Go ahead, try it. We're severely lacking in hard data on the subject as it is.